Intel Core i7-5960X Haswell-E Review: No expense spared performance

I don't know what ghetto pc you were fixing - I use demanding programs like PhotoShops and my core 2 duo simply shines back.
Whether you're happy with the performance isn't really the question, I think Steve is basing his evaluation on a comparison between architectures. My father runs a venerable E8400/P45 system I built for him a while ago - even with a fresh OS install and mint HDD, the thing is slow as molasses on a cold day compared with my 2600K/Z77 - which isn't exactly state of the art. Will it get through the workloads? Sure, but the downtime and responsiveness leaves a lot to be desired if you're used to a more modern architecture . For a more graphic comparison I would recommend Marc Prieur's (Hardware France) periodic CPU comparison.
yojIP2y.jpg
 
Can we get higher resolution game tests? With multi-monitor and 3K-5K monitors on the market, what value does showing what a CPU can do at laptop resolutions? Granted a lot higher resolution is going to be partially GPU dependent, but Haswell-E is also about increasing the memory pipeline and PCI-E bus, which 1080p resolutions are not going to touch. Personally, any new system I build is going to have to support a 3440x1440 minimum gaming resolution.
 
Programs like Notepad were lightning fast 20 years ago on 486s...

I don't know what ghetto pc you were fixing - I use demanding programs like PhotoShops and my core 2 duo simply shines back. Even most modern games like Sleeping Dogs for example run with high fps on high settings at 1080p although I have to admit that when it comes to demanding modern games my pc is starting to show it's age.

Apologies that was sarcasm. Back in the day the Core 2 Duo was the boss but today its outpaced by current generation low-end Celeron and Pentium processors. Comparing it to the 5960X and saying there is no need to upgrade is more than a little funny. But hey if you are happy with it then that is all that matters.

Can we get higher resolution game tests? With multi-monitor and 3K-5K monitors on the market, what value does showing what a CPU can do at laptop resolutions? Granted a lot higher resolution is going to be partially GPU dependent, but Haswell-E is also about increasing the memory pipeline and PCI-E bus, which 1080p resolutions are not going to touch. Personally, any new system I build is going to have to support a 3440x1440 minimum gaming resolution.

I don’t think you can, at least not from us for a little while longer. We will see what the next gen cards bring but for now 4K gaming isn’t that feasible.

I really can’t understand why you need those results or think they will be useful. Furthermore I don’t understand why our results are of no value to you.

Results above 2560x1600 are far more pointless right now because the Radeon R9 290X delivers…

36.7fps in Crysis 3 at 2560x1600
37.0fps in Metro Redux at 2560x1600
48.8fps in Tomb Raider at 2560x1600
42.5fps in Sleeping Dogs at 2560x1600
40.6fps in Battlefield 4 at 2560x1600
44.2fps in Third at 2560x1600
39.6fps in Watch Dogs at 2560x1600

So you want to double the amount of pixels, just halve those frame rates. Awesome you can play Crysis at 18.3fps.

If our results were showing frame rates above 100fps or even 80fps with a single high-end GPU then yeah you would have a point. But at 40fps or less increasing the resolution is just going to result in unplayable performance unless you have 2-3 high-end GPUs.

Until 4K gaming can be enjoyed with a single GPU (or close to) we probably won’t test it.

FYI 3K only has 14% more pixels than 2560x1600. - Not 2560x1500 (Thanks Cliffy)
 
Yes. Love the higher res screens but have to tone down settings unless in 2D/video playback. *sob*

Yeah seems stupid to increase the resolution (presumably for better quality) only to downgrade the in-game visual quality settings to achieve playable performance.
 
Its a great chip but at that price I'll wait until the price comes down. Think about it, as great as this is and it good, for playing a game or even the average home use, who can afford to pay that for a chip, and then all the others stuff that goes with it? Does it really matter what kind of chip you are using if you are doing a paper for college or research, or even playing game, if you push enter and thee answer is there before yu get your finger off the key, no. Then on the internet, most or the new processors are waiting on the internet most of the time anyway, this new chip means it will just be spending a higher percentage of its time waiting because it can finish its job quicker but the internet is still not going to keep up.
Now on the other side, I think the game industry itself might benefit from it as if they have faster servers they can cut down on lag and make the clients much much happier in that regard. I can see a benefit in the area of labs doing large high precision calculations and things like that but for most computer users I just dont see as being cost effective at all. Just my opinion, in any case its a great idea, if you can get the cost down I'd buy one but the present price is a 2 weeks paycheck for me.
 
Back